@68834 said:
@fbaffone332 said:
Hey guys I had two RC sections, one had an article about the Big Bang did anyone get that as well?
I had LG - LR - LR- RC
The RC had the Big Bang article so it was the real one.
Does anyone know which LR was real?
PODCAST THAT CONFIRMS REAL SECTIONS + CURVE:
My school allows you to submit your application while you have an impending score release, they simply put your application on hold in the meantime. Is there any benefit to this? As in - will I be further in the que when the un-hold my application?
What do you mean by necessary 14 days off? As in - it's the norm not to study until score release?
Unless you feel burnt out or otherwise have a reason to (work, school, etc.) I would continue studying. I took January and literally studied the next day after the test. I didn't take a break between January and score release. Also sat for February.
@68834 said:
@paigebarsukov876 said:
LR-RC-LG-RC.
That was unnecessarily difficult for literally no reason.
The set up or the test as whole?
Test.
That was unnecessarily difficult for literally no reason.
I see now why D is technically the best answer but it's not addressed in the video that the stimulus says:
Patients sign form ACCEPTING risk -> THEREFORE, ethicists who say patients RESENT being given ineffective medicine are doubtful.
Accepting does NOT equal 'not resenting' something. Resenting something is feeling bitterness about something. You can ACCEPT something and, at the same time, be RESENTFUL. That was the whole issue with the argument - those things cannot be conflated.
But the correct AC says that they 'changed' their attitude. This implies accepting and non-resentful can be conflated. They WERE accepting but now they ARE resentful. Why can't they still ACCEPT that they were given ineffective medicine but RESENT it as well?
It's obviously still the best AC. But I think the fact that it is not a 100% perfect choice should be addressed.
LSAT really did us dirty putting an actual freaking math question on the LSAT...
Plenty of white people in these comments are identifying that E is a racist, and unjust, assumption. It's quite ignorant and racist to say that white people are unable to identify racist content. You are also assuming no people of color viewed this question beforehand.
Got this right but changed it on BR because I thought, "Wait... just because they are of Indian ethnicity, that doesn't mean they eat Indian curry. Also... what if everyone else eats India curry, too?"
But LSAT straight up just told us we HAVE TO assume Indians eat Indian curry. Wow. This is simply wrong. Indians do not have to eat Indian curry, so Indian curry having more turmeric is irrelevant to this question.
I found highlighting/underlining a complete waste of time for me - but I'm just one data point. Thought I'd chime in, though, because my score significantly improved when I stopped but I rarely see anyone else talk about how underlining/highlighting might not be the best strat for everyone.
I went from between a -8 and -11 average on RC to between -0 and -4 after I stopped highlighting. Obviously highlighting wasn't the only reason for the jump, but I think it was a significant one. For me, I found reading the paragraph then stopping for a few seconds to summarize in my head what I read and the key points was more effective. Plus, you save a ton of time if you can cement key points in your head rather than having to look back to your highlights.
I see you said you have a hard time staying engaged - have you tried to stop after every paragraph to summarize in your head? Highlighting may be the correct method for you still! Just putting my 2 cents in.
I immediately crossed out E because I had no clue what it was saying then spent 5 minutes staring at this question :') Literally why LSAC.
Prospective law school students are fleeing from STEM for a reason - please stop torturing us you know we're stupid
Really does feel like LSAC makes some questions they know 100% people are going to get wrong just to see how much they can screw them by sucking up their time. I suppose knowing when to skip is a legit skill LSAC takes into account.
Agreed. 80+ is insane. I've heard tutors say that LSAC saw an increase in average LSAT scores due to students getting good at studying, so they redesigned the way they create questions - usually by making the ACs harder to parse.
It's ridiculous because it has become a test of: "how can we trick test takers into choosing the wrong answer on purpose", rather than "how can we make this question require logic and skill to answer right".
There have always been trap answers on the LSAT, but they used to be trap answers for people who didn't properly read the stimulus or who were making basic errors. Now the 'trap answer' is literally just a 100% correct answer that LSAC adds ONE word that makes it wrong, and the 'right answer' is a terrible answer that is slightly less terrible than all the other answers and has no specific words wrong with it.
Just annoying.
Same. Unfortunately LSAC knows we think this way and frequently screws us over. I don't remember the exact test, but a PT in the 80's also uses the term 'psychological fact' in an AC which makes it seem wrong, but it is in fact the correct AC.
Honestly, every time I see a weird term I either 1. don't know or 2. don't like, it is ALWAYS the correct AC. About to start choosing AC based on that lol.
Thank God you said it. When I read the question I was like, "What is even the argument here? Whatever, it's #4 I'll go with my gut, it's probably fine."
It was not fine. Feel like the wording on this was extremely obnoxious and it did not feel like it belonged at #4 but at least #10+.
Powerscore said it's less likely to see a LG experimental because of the upcoming changes to the section. Anecdotal evidence: I've taken 2 LSATs, Nov and January, and I got experimental RC both times.
But generally I think, besides the possibility of LG exp being less likely due to overhaul, LR and RC have equal chance.
You cannot attack premises in weaken questions. You are attacking the relationship between premise and conclusion.
The premise stated that two opposing beliefs can be considered medieval epistemology - that's why D is wrong plain and simple. There's no relationship to attack here, it's stated as a fact of the matter.
How are we supposed to distinguish that Bargaining Unit 17 is APART of a government union and that the 'government union' is not a subset of the Bargaining Unit 17? Adding that one useless sentence 'government union' is what put this question at #25.
It's not difficult because the logic is hard, it's difficult because they're intentionally trying to trick you into thinking 'government union' is a subset. Which then makes all the answers wrong. So annoying.
@fbaffone332 said:
Did anyone have a LR experimental? One of my LR sections had a question about early humans wearing clothes made out of animal skin.
There are multiple real LR sections floating around. But mine (I had only 1 LR) was 25 questions and had questions about genetics (unpigmented hair gene passed down between male relatives) and an old culture that used dice which opposite sides added up to 7. If you had those questions, that LR was real. Unfortunately don't remember much else from my LR.
@katiebeth1796176 said:
@paigebarsukov876 said:
That final logic game :')
Did anyone else have the Legally Blond passage? Was super surprised when I saw that as a topic.
@yzhang65977 said:
@paigebarsukov876 said:
That final logic game :')
Did anyone else have the Legally Blond passage? Was super surprised when I saw that as a topic.
i got the same article
Did either of you have RC as an experimental? I had this passage, but I also had two RC sections so I don't know if it was "real" or not.
I had double RC. According to other test takers over on Reddit, the passage that had legally blond/Chaucer/jellyfish/Argentina vs. Uruguay was in fact experimental. My real RC was Malthus (france overpopulation), Intangible assets (brand names), architechts in practice vs. in school, and motion sickness in space. People who had only 1 RC had this section, so it's real.
Bummed out, because I know I did better on the experimental than I did on the real one :')
You know LSAC writers have screwed your brain up when the first thing you think when you read the word 'urban' in the stimulus is, "Oh, so the AC is going to say something stupid but be correct due to this one random word. Better pay attention to urban vs. rural."
Thank you PT 85 and 86 for destroying my brain and ruining my life. At least I got this question correct :')
That final logic game :')
Did anyone else have the Legally Blond passage? Was super surprised when I saw that as a topic.
@candacestubblefield516 said:
Really thankful that they are bringing awareness to the issues with ProctorU because I struggled terribly and my scores were terrible because of my issues with ProctorU the first two times and there wasn't a way to report it at first, now it's at your own risk, and I really hope that they evaluate what they are paying for with ProctorU and the service they are actually receiving. On an already stressful day, this was extremely infuriating to deal with.
My sessions were LG-LR-RC-LR, and I found them to be fairly equal in difficulty. I honestly don't remember specific questions as much as I wish I did; it all seems to blend together some times. I did struggle with time and am concerned that I will receive a lower score as a result, but I feel like this was the first time I had a good experience with ProctorU.
I had the second set of LG games that they speak about in the PS podcast and ran out of time for the double circular game at the end. Worried about that one and struggled some with the Fiction/Non-Fiction questions. I wish that if they are planning to get rid of a section that they would place less numerical value on that section as they fade it out.
I had the second set of RC questions that they spoke about, I struggled with time towards the end and those passages were pretty difficult so I am worried about that section as well. I agree, it was an interesting set of passages but if you had time to read them and take them in, not amidst the timed LSAT. I'm thankful that I had two LR sections, both were equally hard and weren't too bad.
I had the exact same experience as you, except mine was LR-RC-LG-RC. I felt like the RC (real one, the one you got) was really easy until the Kafka passage. Then I was just completely lost. It truly felt as if they were talking in circles on that passage and even though I had a ton of time when I got to it, I'm fairly certain I didn't do well on it.